Why Did the 1905 Revolution Fail

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.

With the October revolution in 1917, Lenin managed to execute a successful coup d’état against the provisional government of Russia and with the death of the constituent assembly early 1918; Lenin and his Bolsheviks had finally control over Russia. However this was just the beginning of various problems he would be facing. This raised the debate on whether Lenin could deal with these problems or not. Many of the quarrels originated from the Tsar’s regime and the provisional government such as Russia’s participation in WW1 as well as economic underdevelopment. Immediate problems such as the raging civil war existed as

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

As the became more revolutionary the became more educated and low wages, long hours and the fact they could not voice their opinions about their grievances made them seethe with discontent. The dissatisfaction of the urban working class was definitely an instability however the power of the strikes were weak and the Tsar, who still had military support was able to crush them with little difficulty. The 1905 uprising relied on the support of the educated, liberal middle-classes in 1914 the liberal was losing support in the Duma therefore the chance of unrest, rapidly, was minimal. That is not to say there was not dissent; middle-class were unorganised and refused to join with other parties.

In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.

In the period from 1906-1914 Russia had appeared to have stabilised due to the social reforms brought in by Stolypin. However this only really created the illusion of stability due to many underlying problems that led to the 1905 revolution not being dealt with, therefore Russia had stabilised very little in this period which in turn would lead to further unrest in the future.

Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.

This downfall came due to the amount of soldier and horses being placed into the war leaving the peasants at home with a loss of man power to continue a, "standard of living"( Causes of the Russian Revolution 2). Due to the decrease in man power, and materials to use at the home front, prices increased and a hunger endemic began. With hunger increasing and inflation of prices continuing strikes began, which eventually stopped transportation. When the transportation stopped supplies and food did not get to the soldiers at war decreasing the amount of people who believed in the czar. The goal of the peasants of the Russian Revolution of 1917, was to gain a new leader and for their voices to be heard. In March 1917, a riot of peasants, and soldiers stormed the streets with the support of the Duma, a group of government officials, forcing Nicolas II out of power.

This led to instability in the government and resulted in people seeing reformist groups as an easy way to create change. And therefore people resulted in violence and uprisings put pressure on the Tsar creating a tense revolutionary ready Russia.

The Russian and Chinese revolutions outcomes were similar as well. As stated on (“Chinese Revolution”) “Chinese Revolution, (1911–12), nationalist democratic revolt that overthrew the Qing (or Manchu) dynasty in 1912 and created a republic…” Chinese wanted to rebuild a democracy, because people were not having enough freedoms. Just like The Russian Revolution which wanted to change their social aspects in complications “The causes of this unrest of the common people towards the Tsar and aristocratic landowners … key factors to consider were ongoing resentment at the cruel treatment of peasants by patricians, poor working conditions experienced by city workers in the fledgling industrial economy and a growing sense of political and social awareness of the lower orders in general (democratic ideas were reaching Russia from the West and being touted by political activists)” (“1917 Russian Revolution”) Similarly to the Chinese revolution they held strikes to protest against their rights because of the unfairness under the rule of the czars.

The 1905 revolution can be considered as the pinnacle event that accelerated the downward spiral of Tsar Nicholas’s rule and Russia’s adherence to their “little father”. From this point onwards Nicholas was referred to by the people as not their “little father” but “Nicholas the Bloody”. "The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people." (The American consul in Odessa). This revolution was an uprising of people from all levels of society and was not an uprising organised by any group in particular. The Bolsheviks played a minimal role in the 1905 revolution as most of their leaders were living in exile and their impact and influence on the workers in that year was weak as well as having no Duma faction. This demonstrates that the Bolsheviks had a minor role in the pinnacle events that led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty but rather gained support after Nicholas’ abdication.

The revolution was an event that was constructed on a small scale of people that were made up of the Bolshevik party, for overturning the Provisional government into the Soviet Union. The revolution was a voluntarist revolution, as it explored the idea of individual agencies and the concept that the cause of an event is based on the actions of those participating themselves. For instance, in the October revolution, the uprising of the political change was due to the action of Lenin and the Bolshevik party. Without the participation of the party and the leadership of Lenin, the revolution would not have been executed in such magnitude. The October revolution is a voluntarist revolution for the following reasons, first, the leadership from Lenin, proved to be more progressive, compared to the traditional leaders at that time. Lenin instructed the affairs of the revolution in public, after writing the April These a speech that criticized the Provisional government and promoted that the Russian government falls under the Soviet Union. Lenin’s charismatic traits are essentially the reason behind the large amount of support that the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union received, a famous line from the April These: “All Power to the Soviets”, was used in propaganda during the time of the revolution, it was a phrase that changed the course of

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot